If this works. this link should take you to an interview with ++ Sarah from the Archbishopric's Facebook page. If it works at all, you may need to click on a little sound icon in the top left hand corner to get the sound.
I suspect it gives a better impression of her and who she is than most of the reports by others which tend to be strained through their aspirations of who they want her to be or not to be.
It's about a quarter of an hour.
Rather than sitting through a video to see if it comes up, I’m just wondering about her position on the Creeds, sacraments, bodily Resurrection of Christ, etc.
To me there is no reason why (1) assisted dying, (2) appropriate and well-funded palliative care, and (3) societal respect for disabled and older people couldn't all sit side-by-side as part of healthcare as a whole - that can't be so rare a viewpoint that there's nobody else that feels similarly.
Sorry - I stuck numbers in to help comprehension of my reply.
I’m sympathetic to that, but also sympathetic to those who say ‘sort out palliative care before moving on assisted dying’ - because at the moment three is improving but probably not there yet, one is coming down the track, and two is very uneven - to the extent that assisted dying could well end up a better option on the basis of geography…
Lots of things sound strange to me too, but it's easy enough to look online or ask someone who is actually involved with whichever church we happen to be talking about.
If this works. this link should take you to an interview with ++ Sarah from the Archbishopric's Facebook page. If it works at all, you may need to click on a little sound icon in the top left hand corner to get the sound.
I suspect it gives a better impression of her and who she is than most of the reports by others which tend to be strained through their aspirations of who they want her to be or not to be.
It's about a quarter of an hour.
Rather than sitting through a video to see if it comes up, I’m just wondering about her position on the Creeds, sacraments, bodily Resurrection of Christ, etc.
She doesn't really talk about these issues in the interview and that isn't why I was offering it. It is more that I suspect she gives a better impression of who she is, what she is like, than anyone can get from reading reports by other people, most of whom are looking to her to fulfill their own idiosyncratic and incompatible packages rather than God's or what she thinks God might be calling her to concentrate on.
There is a sufficient clue, though, in the interview, for someone from a British context to conclude that she is likely to be theologically pretty orthodox.
A previous ABC was mistakenly referred to more than once as “Rowan Atkinson”. I suppose I should be glad that Megan Mulally (Karen in “Will and Grace” is not so well known these days…!
A previous ABC was mistakenly referred to more than once as “Rowan Atkinson”. I suppose I should be glad that Megan Mulally (Karen in “Will and Grace” is not so well known these days…!
Megan Mullally indeed immediately came to my mind when I saw the new archbishop’s name.
Mea culpa; it was naughty of me to say 'but she's not pro-choice when it comes to assisted dying '. Because I have only come across 'pro-choice' used in the context of women's reproductive rights ie abortion.
If this works. this link should take you to an interview with ++ Sarah from the Archbishopric's Facebook page. If it works at all, you may need to click on a little sound icon in the top left hand corner to get the sound.
I suspect it gives a better impression of her and who she is than most of the reports by others which tend to be strained through their aspirations of who they want her to be or not to be.
It's about a quarter of an hour.
Rather than sitting through a video to see if it comes up, I’m just wondering about her position on the Creeds, sacraments, bodily Resurrection of Christ, etc.
She doesn't really talk about these issues in the interview and that isn't why I was offering it. It is more that I suspect she gives a better impression of who she is, what she is like, than anyone can get from reading reports by other people, most of whom are looking to her to fulfill their own idiosyncratic and incompatible packages rather than God's or what she thinks God might be calling her to concentrate on.
There is a sufficient clue, though, in the interview, for someone from a British context to conclude that she is likely to be theologically pretty orthodox.
I liked the interview she gave. I liked her. She has a pastoral heart, PTL. I couldn't help, though, reading some of the comments. LHM.
She has an impossible job. To our prayers .....
It looks like The Society have welcomed her appointment provided she leaves them alone.
At least that's how I read the joint statement from the 'flying bishops'.
The flying +'s.
I thought that is how they would play it. She has a good track record with them on "mutually flourishing", and Canterbury has long been an appointment of senior management for them, so they really do not care if the appointment is male or female as long as they allow their tradition to "flourish".
"Flourish" and "mutually flourishing" in quotes as they pick up technical language, which basically works out as "you in your small corner and I in mine".
It looks like The Society have welcomed her appointment provided she leaves them alone.
At least that's how I read the joint statement from the 'flying bishops'.
The flying +'s.
I thought that is how they would play it. She has a good track record with them on "mutually flourishing", and Canterbury has long been an appointment of senior management for them, so they really do not care if the appointment is male or female as long as they allow their tradition to "flourish".
"Flourish" and "mutually flourishing" in quotes as they pick up technical language, which basically works out as "you in your small corner and I in mine".
As I said on the day, traditional Catholics will be fine with it provided the current deal holds, because they can and do work with it, and as mentioned by @Bishops Finger there is a lot of goodwill from them to keep it so, which is little commented on because the real firebrands have gone.
Dreams of their mass swimming of the Tiber (whether from liberals or those who have already swum) seem a fond hope.
The battle, if there is a battle (which tbh I think is arguable either way), will come from t’other end of the candle.
I am a fickle creature. I distrust bureaucratic unity, but find the deliberate separation under the titular authority of a woman in whose authority one of the sides in this mutual flourishing doesn't believe, worryingly lacking in integrity. More selfishly, I also think it's a small step into institutional toleration of homophobia - if we aren't there already. Closet queens rubbing shoulders with people who would normally wish them harm. It's a strange arrangement, to put it mildly.
I am a fickle creature. I distrust bureaucratic unity, but find the deliberate separation under the titular authority of a woman in whose authority one of the sides in this mutual flourishing doesn't believe, worryingly lacking in integrity. More selfishly, I also think it's a small step into institutional toleration of homophobia - if we aren't there already. Closet queens rubbing shoulders with people who would normally wish them harm. It's a strange arrangement, to put it mildly.
It’s far more nuanced than that fwiw, though I suspect to go into details would be rapidly epiphanic.
Suffice to say that some people at one end of the candle doesn’t think women can have authority, and aren’t worried about priestly orders. Some people at the other end of the candle, the end you’re talking about, are totally on board with the reality of female authority, but don’t think that ontologically they’re priests.
In those terms - and I don’t share them - I’m not sure seeing the ABC in terms of ‘senior manager’ when you’ve got your own bishops anyway necessarily lacks integrity.
Otoh I am a bit uneasy with your reference to ‘closet queens’…
And I won’t be commenting further on the subject on this board.
@betjemaniac if it puts your mind at rest, I'm a gay man who has worshipped alongside the people I'm talking about for half my adult life. I'm left rather wary, but I am not exactly torpedoing, or attacking from a position of ignorance. There's some bitterness there, I will admit, but that is where I'm coming from. That may also be a little too epiphanic, but I couldn't leave it entirely. I will now shut up.
@betjemaniac if it puts your mind at rest, I'm a gay man who has worshipped alongside the people I'm talking about for half my adult life. I'm left rather wary, but I am not exactly torpedoing, or attacking from a position of ignorance. There's some bitterness there, I will admit, but that is where I'm coming from. That may also be a little too epiphanic, but I couldn't leave it entirely. I will now shut up.
Absolutely - happy to leave it there. Apologies hosts, no more from me on the subject (in case we’re skating close to the line).
@Bishops Finger Twenty years ago, I was an opponent of women bishops. Never on theological grounds. The fact that the society in which Jesus and St Paul lived, as well as Roman, Norman and other very patriarchal societies under which the Church flourished, shouldn't be binding on how we life now. My concerns were ecclesiological, because I always hoped and prayed for unity with the churches os East and West. That ship has sailed, so I welcome the ministry of women and the appointment of Dame Sarah as AOC.
Yet I hope she won't give in to pressure groups like WATCH. As an Anglo-Catholic the church I belong to and many of the churches I visit, are under the episcopal care of the Society bishops. I couldn't stay in the C of E if I couldn't worship in the AC tradition, but it wouldn't trouble me if anyone woman priest were officiating at it. I occasionally visit St Bartholomew the Great, Smithfield. They have bells, incense, Latin Mass settings, and the Angelus, but there is a woman on the clergy team. It works for me!
@Bishops Finger Twenty years ago, I was an opponent of women bishops. Never on theological grounds. The fact that the society in which Jesus and St Paul lived, as well as Roman, Norman and other very patriarchal societies under which the Church flourished, shouldn't be binding on how we life now. My concerns were ecclesiological, because I always hoped and prayed for unity with the churches os East and West. That ship has sailed, so I welcome the ministry of women and the appointment of Dame Sarah as AOC.
Yet I hope she won't give in to pressure groups like WATCH. As an Anglo-Catholic the church I belong to and many of the churches I visit, are under the episcopal care of the Society bishops. I couldn't stay in the C of E if I couldn't worship in the AC tradition, but it wouldn't trouble me if anyone woman priest were officiating at it. I occasionally visit St Bartholomew the Great, Smithfield. They have bells, incense, Latin Mass settings, and the Angelus, but there is a woman on the clergy team. It works for me!
WATCH is not, as far as I can see, any threat to Anglo-Catholicism.
I think true unity will be found in the preaching of the Gospel and the administration of the sacraments. Okay, I will give a nod to apostolic succession just to keep certain high church people happy.
The Anglican Communion, Lutheran World Federation, the Vatican, Eastern Orthodox and Reformed Communions are working towards a formal expression of the Nicene Creed.
These attempts at unity have nothing to do with the gender of the leaderships.
Other than the filioque clause, what’s the sticking point between the different churches here? Don’t we have (and have had for a startlingly long time) the Nicene Creed already?
Other than the filioque clause, what’s the sticking point between the different churches here? Don’t we have (and have had for a startlingly long time) the Nicene Creed already?
I assumed discussions about the filioque were what was meant.
For me, the issue goes to using a male referring to a newly elected archbishop female by first name without her known permission. A male referring to a male, no matter the title, is a little more permissible.
Sixty or more years ago one would have referred to bishops (all then male) as Dr Surname. In the C of E they were usually granted an honorary doctorate if they didn't have one. Then later it was more common to see Bishop (or Archbishop) Surname. But with recent years (thirty or more at least) Bishop Firstname, or more informally +Firstname. Within the Christian family that seems entirely respectful, and indicative of his/her relationship to the members of the family. Just as priests these days are often addressed as Father or Mother Firstname, or just Firstname alone. Christians shouldn't need to ask permission to address other Christians by their Christian names. It's not like an anonymous double-glazing salesperson ringing you up and immediately using your first name.
I think in some ways Americans are more formal than us British (though in others, the opposite). It's a big ocean.
It just depends on local custom. Formality conveyed in different manners depending on where you are--I wouldn't say a whole culture is more or less formal than another just because they happen to express themselves in ways that would mean formality elsewhere. You really have to ask what the usage means to them there.
In my past of the U. S., the use of first names alone for people we aren't personally acquainted with can come off as presumptuous. This is reflected in the phrase "to be on a first name basis"--the implication of that usage is that you are close--friends, not simply acquaintances.
There are of course a host of exceptions to that, such as the common American practice of addressing everyone at work by first name whether one knows them or not, and regardless of relative status.
In Britain - well, England at least - there was once a custom of men addressing their friends and "equals" by their surname, but of addressing servants and others deemed "inferior" by their first names. Tradespeople were, I think, Mr. X; cooks were always Mrs. Y.
Hence, in "The Diary of a Nobody" (c.1890) Pooter, Cummings and Gowing all use only their surnames. I had a whiff of this at Prep School in the early 1960s - first names were only for the very closest of friends.
Have you noticed how older people in care homes and hospitals are usually addressed by their first names? (It seems to me to say something about the power ratio between staff and residents/patients). My late mother objected strongly to this and would say, "I haven't given you permission to use my first name".
Maybe it's my background in mediaeval history talking, but calling bishops/archbishops by Christian name+job title seems to me to be time-honoured (dating back to when most people didn't have surnames anyway) and so not in the least disrespectful. So "Sarah, archbishop -elect of Canterbury" is on a par with referring to her ultimate predecessor as "Augustine, first archbishop of Canterbury". Senior clergy (in the C of E at least) being rather like royalty in this respect: her late majesty would be respectfully referred to as "Queen Elizabeth". Conversely, if you called her "Elizabeth Windsor"I would take it that you intended to disrespect/belittle her position.
We would use the phrase 'to be on first name terms' over here.
The use of first names isn't an automatic 'given' over here. When I worked in universities I used to address the Vice Chancellor as 'Vice Chancellor' rather than by their first name, even though some of my colleagues at the same 'level' as me addressed them by their first names.
It's all down to context and I'd imagine that would also apply in the USA with regional variations.
I've always thought of the Southern States as being more formal with use of terms like 'ma'am' and 'sir' but I might be well wide of the mark.
Whatever the case, as has been said there is medieval precedent for referring to senior clergy by their first names.
In Britain - well, England at least - there was once a custom of men addressing their friends and "equals" by their surname, but of addressing servants and others deemed "inferior" by their first names. Tradespeople were, I think, Mr. X; cooks were always Mrs. Y.
It's a bit more complicated than that!
A butler, for example, might be Jeeves to the family, but would be Mr Jeeves to the staff, whom he outranked. He would certainly expect "Mr Jeeves" from tradespeople, and might well extend the courtesy of "Mr Jones" to the proprietor of a local business, but an assistant would only rank as "Smith".
Junior servants would get addressed by their Christian names (and if their baptismal name wasn't considered sufficiently plain, they might get assigned a "suitable" servanty name). In some households, it was the practice to assign a particular given name to a particular role, so the first footman might always be called James.
As a nursing sister, I addressed patients by their title and surname until they told me otherwise. I regularly called them sir and madam.
The gendered use of surname does still sometimes happen amongst high status professionals, with men getting called by title and surname and women by first name, similar to the status discussion above. (When I did Victorian re-enactment that housemaid was always called Mary regardless of her name).
Whatever the case, as has been said there is medieval precedent for referring to senior clergy by their first names.
That's good enough for me ... 😉
At the risk of overegging the pudding isn't that dangerously newfangled in Orthodox terms 🤔😉
Ha ha ha! Nice one!
We refer to clergy by their first names, of course, prefixed by whatever their title happens to be ... Metropolitan Silouan, Archimandrite Philip, Father Deacon John and so on ...
Nuns tend to be Sister First Name.
We do go in for fancy titles, I'm afraid, 'His Eminence' and the like and then there's the unfortunate and to my mind entirely unnecessary habit of British or Anglo-Saxon or other non-Eastern European heritage Americans adopting Greek or Slavic names when they become Orthodox.
Father Dionysius and the like.
This is particularly daft when they might have perfectly serviceable 'Christian' names such as Paul, Peter, James, Sarah and so on.
But this is supposed to be a thread about the new Archbishop of Canterbury not names and titles.
Surely it's entirely appropriate for an Archbishop to assume a position of servanthood... (I say somewhat facetiously)
I will say that I personally prefer to be called by my first name so as to avoid gendered titles or sir/madam - although I realise that for gender neutral titles like Dr or Revd that is less of an issue, though a knighthood or damehood would be an issue (not that I would accept anyway).
@pablito1954 it should be remembered that many Anglo-Catholic clergy *are* women - and in my experience they have better relationships with Society clergy than with WATCH types. All the Anglo-Catholic women clergy I know love +Philip North for instance and many trained under him in the London young ministry training scheme.
Today at 12.04 p.m.the major bell of St Stefan's cathedral in Vienna (die Pummerin) was rung.Normally it is only rung on 31st December. It was to announce the appointment ,after 9 months'wait ,of a new archbishop. The indication that Josef Gruenwidl would be the new archbishop came two days ago but in Austria the appointment of any RC bishop has to be indicated first of all formally to the government who can delay,but ultimately not overturn, the decision of the pope.
Gruenwidl ,at his first press conference, has said that he is not perfect but that God does not demand perfection but rather that one should be at God's disposal. At least until now he has been very much in favour of women's ministry in the Church and also in favour of abolishing obligatory celibacy for clergy in the RC Church.
Unlike archbishop Sarah he is not already a bishop and it is thought that his episcopal ordination will take place in January,one year after the retiral of the previous archbishop ,Cardinal Christoph Schoenborn
Gruenwidl has been a close colleague of Schoenborn for some years now and was appointed as Apostolic Administrator of the archdiocese on 22nd Jan.2025 as per the wish of Schoenborn.
He will remain as Apostolic Administrator until his episcopal ordination.
Schoenborn was already an auxiliary bishop when appointed as Archbishop and the other Austrian archbishop Lackner of Salzburg was already a bishop when appointed.
However she's only officially being "enthroned" (what a terrible word) next month.
I remember being at the sidelines of a furious discussion over enthroned/installed/ inaugurated. I earned myself few friends by suggesting that we adopt the Ghanaian enstooled (the installation of chiefs or local kings). Perhaps we missed a chance to bring in a verb connected to the bishop's cathedra.
If it's any help the ministry of Pope Leo was inaugurated at the "Mass for the Beginning of the Petrine Ministry of the Bishop of Rome." The language would seem to focus on the office itself rather than what was being done to the man.
"Cathedraed" would sound too much like "cathetered".
I was thinking "Cathedrated".
I think @Alan29 's point about the office rather than the action is important. The difficulty with the latter is we get odd situations where a bishop requires to be installed multiple times if they have more than one cathedral. Our diocese installs new bishops in the Cathedral of Argyll in Oban in the first instance, and only later in the Cathedral of the Isles in Great Cumbrae.
"Installing" always makes me think of putting in a new heating system.
The ecclesiastical meaning is the original meaning of the word, though—
to formally place in a church office by seating them in their stall (as in a choir stall) or seat/chair.
“Install” is the word used by my people to refer to putting someone in office, whether it be an elder on the Session, a minister as pastor of a congregation, or an elder or minister as moderator of a presbytery, synod or General Assembly. A service at which this happens is an Installation. (One service can be a service of both ordination and installation.)
“Installed” is also, in my experience, the term often used in American Academia when a faculty member is formally given an endowed professorship, also called an endowed chair.
Yes, I can see the derivation. I once went to a service which was an Installation and Collation (and it was neither a meal nor a gathering of editors).
Comments
Rather than sitting through a video to see if it comes up, I’m just wondering about her position on the Creeds, sacraments, bodily Resurrection of Christ, etc.
Sorry - I stuck numbers in to help comprehension of my reply.
I’m sympathetic to that, but also sympathetic to those who say ‘sort out palliative care before moving on assisted dying’ - because at the moment three is improving but probably not there yet, one is coming down the track, and two is very uneven - to the extent that assisted dying could well end up a better option on the basis of geography…
Berries grow on trees.
Lots of things sound strange to me too, but it's easy enough to look online or ask someone who is actually involved with whichever church we happen to be talking about.
There is a sufficient clue, though, in the interview, for someone from a British context to conclude that she is likely to be theologically pretty orthodox.
At least that's how I read the joint statement from the 'flying bishops'.
The flying +'s.
Yay!
She has an impossible job. To our prayers .....
I thought that is how they would play it. She has a good track record with them on "mutually flourishing", and Canterbury has long been an appointment of senior management for them, so they really do not care if the appointment is male or female as long as they allow their tradition to "flourish".
"Flourish" and "mutually flourishing" in quotes as they pick up technical language, which basically works out as "you in your small corner and I in mine".
As I said on the day, traditional Catholics will be fine with it provided the current deal holds, because they can and do work with it, and as mentioned by @Bishops Finger there is a lot of goodwill from them to keep it so, which is little commented on because the real firebrands have gone.
Dreams of their mass swimming of the Tiber (whether from liberals or those who have already swum) seem a fond hope.
The battle, if there is a battle (which tbh I think is arguable either way), will come from t’other end of the candle.
It’s far more nuanced than that fwiw, though I suspect to go into details would be rapidly epiphanic.
Suffice to say that some people at one end of the candle doesn’t think women can have authority, and aren’t worried about priestly orders. Some people at the other end of the candle, the end you’re talking about, are totally on board with the reality of female authority, but don’t think that ontologically they’re priests.
In those terms - and I don’t share them - I’m not sure seeing the ABC in terms of ‘senior manager’ when you’ve got your own bishops anyway necessarily lacks integrity.
Otoh I am a bit uneasy with your reference to ‘closet queens’…
And I won’t be commenting further on the subject on this board.
Absolutely - happy to leave it there. Apologies hosts, no more from me on the subject (in case we’re skating close to the line).
Yet I hope she won't give in to pressure groups like WATCH. As an Anglo-Catholic the church I belong to and many of the churches I visit, are under the episcopal care of the Society bishops. I couldn't stay in the C of E if I couldn't worship in the AC tradition, but it wouldn't trouble me if anyone woman priest were officiating at it. I occasionally visit St Bartholomew the Great, Smithfield. They have bells, incense, Latin Mass settings, and the Angelus, but there is a woman on the clergy team. It works for me!
WATCH is not, as far as I can see, any threat to Anglo-Catholicism.
The Anglican Communion, Lutheran World Federation, the Vatican, Eastern Orthodox and Reformed Communions are working towards a formal expression of the Nicene Creed.
These attempts at unity have nothing to do with the gender of the leaderships.
Simples.
😉
Why do we need a 'formal expression of the Nicene Creed.'
It already exists. The filioque clause wasn't in the original. Drop that and then we can continue the conversations.
Agreeing what actually happens in the sacraments would be a bigger challenge I think.
It's good to hear that all these great and venerable traditions are in dialogue, though. We have much to learn from one another.
As long as you all end up agreeing with us and we can say, 'I told you so!' 😉
No, seriously, if there is formal dialogue as well as informal friendship and respect then that's wonderful and all to the good.
Sixty or more years ago one would have referred to bishops (all then male) as Dr Surname. In the C of E they were usually granted an honorary doctorate if they didn't have one. Then later it was more common to see Bishop (or Archbishop) Surname. But with recent years (thirty or more at least) Bishop Firstname, or more informally +Firstname. Within the Christian family that seems entirely respectful, and indicative of his/her relationship to the members of the family. Just as priests these days are often addressed as Father or Mother Firstname, or just Firstname alone. Christians shouldn't need to ask permission to address other Christians by their Christian names. It's not like an anonymous double-glazing salesperson ringing you up and immediately using your first name.
I think in some ways Americans are more formal than us British (though in others, the opposite). It's a big ocean.
In my past of the U. S., the use of first names alone for people we aren't personally acquainted with can come off as presumptuous. This is reflected in the phrase "to be on a first name basis"--the implication of that usage is that you are close--friends, not simply acquaintances.
There are of course a host of exceptions to that, such as the common American practice of addressing everyone at work by first name whether one knows them or not, and regardless of relative status.
Hence, in "The Diary of a Nobody" (c.1890) Pooter, Cummings and Gowing all use only their surnames. I had a whiff of this at Prep School in the early 1960s - first names were only for the very closest of friends.
Have you noticed how older people in care homes and hospitals are usually addressed by their first names? (It seems to me to say something about the power ratio between staff and residents/patients). My late mother objected strongly to this and would say, "I haven't given you permission to use my first name".
The use of first names isn't an automatic 'given' over here. When I worked in universities I used to address the Vice Chancellor as 'Vice Chancellor' rather than by their first name, even though some of my colleagues at the same 'level' as me addressed them by their first names.
It's all down to context and I'd imagine that would also apply in the USA with regional variations.
I've always thought of the Southern States as being more formal with use of terms like 'ma'am' and 'sir' but I might be well wide of the mark.
Whatever the case, as has been said there is medieval precedent for referring to senior clergy by their first names.
That's good enough for me ... 😉
At the risk of overegging the pudding isn't that dangerously newfangled in Orthodox terms 🤔😉
It's a bit more complicated than that!
A butler, for example, might be Jeeves to the family, but would be Mr Jeeves to the staff, whom he outranked. He would certainly expect "Mr Jeeves" from tradespeople, and might well extend the courtesy of "Mr Jones" to the proprietor of a local business, but an assistant would only rank as "Smith".
Junior servants would get addressed by their Christian names (and if their baptismal name wasn't considered sufficiently plain, they might get assigned a "suitable" servanty name). In some households, it was the practice to assign a particular given name to a particular role, so the first footman might always be called James.
The gendered use of surname does still sometimes happen amongst high status professionals, with men getting called by title and surname and women by first name, similar to the status discussion above. (When I did Victorian re-enactment that housemaid was always called Mary regardless of her name).
Ha ha ha! Nice one!
We refer to clergy by their first names, of course, prefixed by whatever their title happens to be ... Metropolitan Silouan, Archimandrite Philip, Father Deacon John and so on ...
Nuns tend to be Sister First Name.
We do go in for fancy titles, I'm afraid, 'His Eminence' and the like and then there's the unfortunate and to my mind entirely unnecessary habit of British or Anglo-Saxon or other non-Eastern European heritage Americans adopting Greek or Slavic names when they become Orthodox.
Father Dionysius and the like.
This is particularly daft when they might have perfectly serviceable 'Christian' names such as Paul, Peter, James, Sarah and so on.
But this is supposed to be a thread about the new Archbishop of Canterbury not names and titles.
I will say that I personally prefer to be called by my first name so as to avoid gendered titles or sir/madam - although I realise that for gender neutral titles like Dr or Revd that is less of an issue, though a knighthood or damehood would be an issue (not that I would accept anyway).
Gruenwidl ,at his first press conference, has said that he is not perfect but that God does not demand perfection but rather that one should be at God's disposal. At least until now he has been very much in favour of women's ministry in the Church and also in favour of abolishing obligatory celibacy for clergy in the RC Church.
Unlike archbishop Sarah he is not already a bishop and it is thought that his episcopal ordination will take place in January,one year after the retiral of the previous archbishop ,Cardinal Christoph Schoenborn
He will remain as Apostolic Administrator until his episcopal ordination.
Schoenborn was already an auxiliary bishop when appointed as Archbishop and the other Austrian archbishop Lackner of Salzburg was already a bishop when appointed.
Basil Hume wasn't a bishop.
I didn't know that! So it is a bit unusual but far from unheard-of: am I right?
I remember being at the sidelines of a furious discussion over enthroned/installed/ inaugurated. I earned myself few friends by suggesting that we adopt the Ghanaian enstooled (the installation of chiefs or local kings). Perhaps we missed a chance to bring in a verb connected to the bishop's cathedra.
I was thinking "Cathedrated".
I think @Alan29 's point about the office rather than the action is important. The difficulty with the latter is we get odd situations where a bishop requires to be installed multiple times if they have more than one cathedral. Our diocese installs new bishops in the Cathedral of Argyll in Oban in the first instance, and only later in the Cathedral of the Isles in Great Cumbrae.
to formally place in a church office by seating them in their stall (as in a choir stall) or seat/chair.
“Install” is the word used by my people to refer to putting someone in office, whether it be an elder on the Session, a minister as pastor of a congregation, or an elder or minister as moderator of a presbytery, synod or General Assembly. A service at which this happens is an Installation. (One service can be a service of both ordination and installation.)
“Installed” is also, in my experience, the term often used in American Academia when a faculty member is formally given an endowed professorship, also called an endowed chair.
Yes, there is that!